baywatchfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:Susalex
It wasn't my intention to be rude, but I removed it for a reason, but you switched it back again. Yes, I did, because you just deleted it without any explanation. You're adding things that don't need to be added. Who wants to know the measurements and build of an actress unless there's something more to it. Obviously you don't; are you saying you represent everybody? Who wants to know the age of an actor? Why is age more important than height? Besides, 'Date of Birth' would be better than 'Age', at least that stays valid and doesn't need to be changed each year. You already gave a description of it in the appearance section of the character page, so why are you including it in the templates and adding it to actor pages when there is no need? It's about the actor's talent, not how the person looks. Again 'no need'. Is there a need for anything? Why is 'place of birth' needed? How does that affect the actors 'talent'? And are you really saying that the physical appearance of an actor has nothing to do with anything… especially in a show like Baywatch? I could understand the objections if what I've added is complete nonsense, but all the info I have added can be verified by a number of sources. …of course that does not mean they are true. I made some of the pages that you edited so I have a right to change them. If you have any ideas at least run it by us first instead of adding to it things that you see fit. Well, I think your thoughts are completely against what a 'wiki' is supposed to be (just google it) and nowhere in the 'Fandom University' can I find a mention that one editor can claim ownership of a page. On the contrary, it says anybody can make changes to the pages. When I say we, I mean me and the other people like Lg16spears who are trying to make this wikipedia acceptable for everyone, it's not just a page for men and teenagers. It's supposed to be a respectable wikipedia that reflects on the show, not just the appearance of the character or actor. This is just the thing, that is your opinion, not some fundamental truth. I'm sure there are people who think your 'Age' fact is pure ageism and should be removed. What about those people who don't like the name 'David'? It seems a bit arbitrary what facts you are ready to accept as 'needed'. Some of the things you have added to the wikipedia have been good, but we don't need any info on the build or measurements of actresses and we certainly don't need them in the character template if you've already typed them in somewhere else. The template as I see it should contain pertinent 'facts' – all of them, not just some, handpicked according to one person's likes and dislikes. It is also quite normal to have some sort of quick facts where you can find some info at a glance, info that is then elaborated in the actual text. So some information can be mentioned more than once. I hope we can still continue to work together to make this wikia great for everyone. I did like some of your ideas and maybe you could help me with my Lois and Clark Wikia Daniel Macgregor (talk) 21:30, November 26, 2016 (UTC) Well you really know how to discourage someone to make additions. My main grief is with the summary deletions without explanations. Like the image I added to Stephanie Holden. Why did it have to go? Sure, it was just me experimenting with adding images, but it did serve a purpose and there were supposed to be more. Why hasn't the extra image on CJ Parker's page been deleted? I do respect the fact that you have been here longer, but that doesn't give you the right to act as a dictator.Susalex (talk) 14:20, December 6, 2016 (UTC) What is the name David got to do with anything? Putting Age in the wikipedia is not ageist, he original Wikipedia I've been on always says that about actors. You completely missed the point. I don't think age here is ageism, it is a fact. But someone might not see it that way, that someone might ask "Who wants to see a characters/actors age? What does that have to do with anything?" The name 'David' was just a ridiculous thing of something that someone might consider inappropriate. I think that age and appearance are facts and important parts of a character and extremely important factors of/for actors. Claiming that only skills and, I don't know, mental attributes are important when describing someone is not very honest. It is a fact that Caroline Holden was short and had a voluptuous body while her sister was the opposite. Why should that be omitted from a description? Thank you for responding to my message. I'm not trying to domineering as Dictator, I was trying to tell you gently that some things weren't needed, but you took it too personally. Gently? That it wasn't. It was 'delete' and then 'Because I say so!' I'm also thinking about children who might go onto this wikipedia and see some things they aren't meant to. "Think about the children!" How many times have I seen that in media these days… and almost always for the wrong reasons. A 'child' will most likely not be interested in a 90s show no matter what. And if they are, how exactly would the measurements of Pam Anderson hurt that child? And again, who says they are not meant to see or know that? Don't get me wrong, I don't like pages you think these will turn into. That extra picture of C.J. was there for a purpose to explain her personality and hobbies. I understood that. Was you intention for sticking that picture of Stephanie in your way of telling people what she looked like in Season 3? If so, I'll place it there. Yes, my intent was to show with a few images how she changed through the years. If Alexandra herself has talked about it on several occasions I thought would be worth mentioning. Walls of text are hardly ever fun, so images here and there make it easier and more fun to read. At least that's what I think. If you say that the character owned an amazing car, instead of just describing the car I think it's better to add a picture of it. Not that there are that much text on this wiki… Have you tried searching for images of the characters yourself? It's fairly easy to do.--Daniel Macgregor (talk) 21:59, December 6, 2016 (UTC) I have no idea what this relates to. I don't think I said anything about not finding images. Susalex (talk) 16:35, December 13, 2016 (UTC) I metioned that last bit because of you adding that picture of Stephanie Holden. I didn't put because I say so, you're twisting things. I've seen some wikipedias that are very strict and get rid of what you put without an explanation and then block you if you're not careful, I know because it happened to me a few times, so I don't know what you're going on about, I just gave you a explanation. We should work together not argue like this. It's pointless. This never should of turned out to be this extreme, it's just a silly misunderstanding about page changes, that's all, you just didn't like what you put in to be removed, but that's what tends to happen on wikipedias. My opinion about children is sincere, it isn't for the wrong reasons. People have have differant opinions about what to put in changes fair enough, but we just need to be careful about what we add to it and as I said before there is nothing wrong with saying their age, to me it just shows how talented they've been all those years, I don't see any negativity about it. I want us to be friends because we both like Baywatch and making the pages more interesting, so why should we be fighting each other? Daniel Macgregor (talk) 23:02, December 13, 2016 (UTC)